Kailansorac Clever, believable, and super fun to watch. It totally has replay value.

Kayden This is a dark and sometimes deeply uncomfortable drama

Delight Yes, absolutely, there is fun to be had, as well as many, many things to go boom, all amid an atmospheric urban jungle.

Justina The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.

grantss A young man works as a projectionist at a movie theatre but dreams of becoming a famous detective. His studies toward this goal are put to the test when visiting his girlfriend. A rival steals his girlfriend's father's watch and frames him for the crime. He is forbidden from seeing her again. Now he must fight to clear his name.Buster Keaton at his finest - a classic of the Silent Era. Good plot, all of which is a central structure around which Keaton can build some incredibly clever scenes, sub-plots and sight gags. Some of these are brilliantly funny and intelligent, as Keaton toys mercilessly with the audience. The pool scene - the adventure of the exploding ball - is a great example.Some very clever cinematography and editing too - some of the visual effects and stunts were quite innovative for their time.Superb.

Antonio Kowatsch Quick synopsis: A young man who is working as a projectionist in the local cinema tries his hardest to become a detective. His favorite pastime activity is reading books about said topic; "how to become a detective". When the father of his romantic interest lost his watch he applied himself by trying to figure out who stole it. By a twist of fate he ends up being accused/framed for the crime. With the now blemishing reputation he has all the more reason to reveal the real thief.The first thing that you'll notice is the movie's brevity. With a running time of only 45 minutes this movie is among the shorter ones (even for the silent film genre). It is a silent film so there is no actual "spoken" dialogue. If you're not accustomed to this type of genre it may take some getting used to.The great thing with the film scores for silent movies is that they're continuous. Unlike in contemporary movies where the film score only kicks in every now and then to accentuate certain scenes or to blend in with the uneventful scenes. So yes, even though they're called silent films they're anything but silent. Quite to the contrary; they feature more music than regular movies. I myself have a rather impressive collection of projection reels of silent movies; the only problem being that I'd need a full-blown orchestra to accompany it. So unfortunately for me my movies are truly silent. How ironic.... I know.The second half of the movie is basically the projectionist's daydream in which he "solves the crime". The billiard scene was rather hilarious. I wonder how many times they had to film those scenes to get it just right. Either that or Buster Keaton was seriously skilled in the art of trickshotting.To conclude: The movie was actually quite enjoyable once the protagonists entered his daydream. But for me personally the beginning felt a little bit like a drag. If once considers that all the action happens in his dream it becomes clear why the first half of the movie should've been kept shorter. So yes, pacing-wise the movie feels a little bit slow in the beginning.All the classical Sherlock Holmes themes were explored with the exception of Bartitsu. Sherlock Jr. wasn't a skilled fighter but rather the kind of fellow who'd run away from a fight, even in his dreams.It's a decent movie but definitely not one of Buster Keaton's best. But that's just my personal opinion. Feel free to chime in if you think otherwise.Final verdict: recommended (if you like silent movies)

classicsoncall With a film like this made in 1924, you have to wonder why some of the creative effects Buster Keaton developed for this story have never been seen since. They may be out there, but I've never seen anything before like his stroll right into a movie screen to take part in the story that he's projecting for an audience in a theater. He then pratfalls his way through a number of scene changes, remaining in one spot while the action around him hurriedly continues apace. One of the best bits had him nosedive through an open window and into a woman's dress for a stunning visual effect. The question on the tip of your tongue will be 'How did he do that?', or alternatively, 'How can anyone do something like that'?' Another thing I found interesting as a cinema fan was the choice of movie posters one can see as advertising material in the lobby of the theater where Keaton's character is working. One of them was a very early Stan Laurel silent film, "Mud and Sand", which demonstrated that Keaton wasn't averse to showing another performer's name in print, even if he might have been a competitor, so to speak. There was another one for a 1923 short titled "The Fog", but it appears the movie the projectionist was showing wasn't real. It was called "Hearts and Pearls or The Lounge Lizard's Lost Love in Five-Parts". My search on IMDb didn't come up with anything on that one. I know a lot of folks shun silent films because they don't consider them very interesting, but you can do yourself a favor by checking out "Sherlock Jr." Yes, it's black and white, and it's silent, but director and star Buster Keaton is so inventive that you'll come away amazed at the effects he creates. One could almost call them special effects, but of course, in 1924 they were all real, just camera tricks and techniques to come up with a stunning visual. This is just that kind of a fun flick.

r-flavin This film of a wannabe crime solver gives a great glimpse of how creative special effects of the time were. All for the soul purpose of slapstick comedy. Sherlock Jr. does a decent job of representing the characters given that this is a silent film. The humor is easy to grasp and the supporting cast is always there to give their little bit of life to the scene for Buster Keaton takes the cake in terms of being a very lively character with a great sense of portraying the intended emotions of each scene.